Casurf1978 0 #51 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuote The facts: ... FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Since this guy is so keen on facts, how come he doesn't know that Japan, a member of the Axis Powers, attacked the USA on 12/7/1941, and that Hitler declared war on the USA in a speech to the Reichstag less than a week later. The USA did NOT declare war on Germany. I just love people whose version of history comes from watching TV and movies. AMEN. About time someone set the facts straight. Also to the original post, Japan did declare war on us, the decleration was handed over after the attack on PH. Read up on some basic history before making such statements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #52 February 17, 2004 One of the funniest things about that "letter to the editor" was that this guy compares average yearly mortality rates, as if it matters to the families whose loved ones have been lost that "it was only 300 this year, that's not that bad". Not to mention the fact that the face of warfare, and particularly our own military has changed drastically since WWII. We can basically kick just about anybody's ass without ever putting a soldier on the ground. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #53 February 17, 2004 QuoteMost young Puppies now Days were not born early enough to know what a Bad President is apparently. Well, I was. I know how to recognize when a President is lying, I learned by watching Johnson and Nixon. I learned how to recognize a demagogue by watching McCarthy. And that's how I knew to be very skeptical of all this administration's claims of WMDs in Iraq. The signs were all there to see for anyone that would look. You can't say I didn't warn y'all! From one year ago: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=381915#381915 and www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386328#386328... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #54 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuote Bill made a great post. He pointed out things about the technologies already available. Why is the American public not buying? Maybe because in a lot of cases industry is not offering. You don't think evil corporations would sell if there was demand? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #55 February 17, 2004 QuoteWe can basically kick just about anybody's ass without ever putting a soldier on the ground. Basically doesn't cut it, Benny. If we COULD win a war without ever putting an American soldier on the ground, we would. Unfortunately wars require occupation. The only other way to "win", would be to literally flatten a country with bombs. Nobody wins in that scenario, nobody. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #56 February 17, 2004 QuoteGWB, Worst President? I think Nixon and Clinton rank higher in this category than GWB. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #57 February 17, 2004 >You don't think evil corporations would sell if there was demand? Honda and Toyata seem to be selling their hybrids at a fairly nice pace. Where is Ford, Chevy or any domestic offering into this category? Ford was once quoted as saying its better for business not to put the money into hybrod research since SUV's have a higher profit margin.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #58 February 17, 2004 QuoteFord was once quoted as saying its better for business not to put the money into hybrod research since SUV's have a higher profit margin. Doesn't matter. If the demand existed, they would build them, and build them in droves. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #59 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteGWB, Worst President? I think Nixon and Clinton rank higher in this category than GWB. Chris Johnson easily outranks Clinton. Maybe you don't remember...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #60 February 17, 2004 Quote The only other way to "win", would be to literally flatten a country with bombs. Nobody wins in that scenario, nobody. - Jim Well, if Iraq was either a terrorist threat or a WMD threat, flattening the country with bombs would certainly take care of both those issues would it not? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #61 February 17, 2004 No Benny, it would not. It would needlessly kill ALL of the innocent civilians. It would render the land uninhabitable for 10s of years. It would make the US as evil as I believe you think that it is. Let me know when you've got a realistic plan to win a war without ground troops. I'd love to hear about it; I'm sure that the military planners would, too. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #62 February 17, 2004 QuoteJohnson easily outranks Clinton. Maybe you don't remember... I have to claim ignorance because I was just turning 3 months old when Johnson became President. Wait a second, which President Johnson are you referring to? Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #63 February 17, 2004 Quote No Benny, it would not. It would needlessly kill ALL of the innocent civilians. It would render the land uninhabitable for 10s of years. It would make the US as evil as I believe you think that it is. Let me know when you've got a realistic plan to win a war without ground troops. I'd love to hear about it; I'm sure that the military planners would, too. - Jim But the real answer to this question Jimbo lies in that fact that Iraq was neither a terrorist nor a WMD threat, so neither option (all out bombing or ground invasion) was necessary. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #64 February 17, 2004 In modern economics you go for highest profit margin and generally ignore market demands. "You can have any color you want as long as its Black" Same goes for types of cars now days... you can have any Ford you want as long as its an SUV. Honda and Toyata have the most popular and best selling lines of vehicles in their classes anymore and the one thing both have in common is better fuel milage and better value for the $. The market has been demanding higher fuel effeciceny since the early 90's but its more profitable to build something that only slightly improves the effeceny but also increases the power. Most consumers could care less about the difference between 205 HP and 220 HP but there is more money and time spent on that type of a change then from going from 28 mpg to 30 mpg.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #65 February 18, 2004 Which is really odd since camless engine technology offers both higher horsepower throughout the curve and greater fuel economy. Though it does mean reduced margins for a bit. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #66 February 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteJohnson easily outranks Clinton. Maybe you don't remember... I have to claim ignorance because I was just turning 3 months old when Johnson became President. Wait a second, which President Johnson are you referring to? Chris Not even I recall the first one, sonny!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #67 February 18, 2004 lol! Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #68 February 18, 2004 QuoteBut the real answer to this question Jimbo lies in that fact that Iraq was neither a terrorist nor a WMD threat, so neither option (all out bombing or ground invasion) was necessary. I'll spare you the history lesson on Iraq, Benny. I believe that Michele took care of that a few weeks ago. Now, back to the business at hand. I was addressing your statement that it would be possible to win a war without the use of ground troops. You've done nothing to persuade me that I am wrong, or that you are correct. Again, I ask you, do you have a workable plan for this? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #69 February 18, 2004 Quote QuoteBut the real answer to this question Jimbo lies in that fact that Iraq was neither a terrorist nor a WMD threat, so neither option (all out bombing or ground invasion) was necessary. I'll spare you the history lesson on Iraq, Benny. I believe that Michele took care of that a few weeks ago. Now, back to the business at hand. I was addressing your statement that it would be possible to win a war without the use of ground troops. You've done nothing to persuade me that I am wrong, or that you are correct. Again, I ask you, do you have a workable plan for this? - Jim History lesson on Iraq? What history lesson is that? The one of how we put Saddam Hussein in power? The one where we sold them WMD which he then used against his own people and Iran, but used them up so he no longer has them? The one where Al Quaeda actually hated Saddam? The one where Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? What, do anything to link Saddam to a recent threat (i.e. within the past 6 years) to the United States with WMD or link them to 9/11 and I'll change my mind and wholeheartedly support the war. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #70 February 18, 2004 QuoteNow, back to the business at hand. I was addressing your statement that it would be possible to win a war without the use of ground troops. You've done nothing to persuade me that I am wrong, or that you are correct. Again, I ask you, do you have a workable plan for this? Still waiting. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #71 February 18, 2004 Quote QuoteNow, back to the business at hand. I was addressing your statement that it would be possible to win a war without the use of ground troops. You've done nothing to persuade me that I am wrong, or that you are correct. Again, I ask you, do you have a workable plan for this? Still waiting. - Jim Hmm, well, you saw my last post. But this really raises the question, what does it mean to win a war? Personally I don't know the answer to that, do you? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #72 February 18, 2004 The smartest and brightest people I know aren't skydivers. Bad way to judge credibility. Everybody's got something useful to add...usually...no matter how may times they've jumped out of an airplane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #73 February 18, 2004 Quotewould soon have nuclear capabilities Its spelled NUK-U-LAR!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #74 February 18, 2004 How about the war on terror started by Reagan in south america? The threat then was the commie hordes were going to take over the U.S (what a joke) so the U.S ended up killing and torturing thousands of civilians mostly. I'm afraid the U.S has lost any sympathy it had in the international community for the attacks on the WTC since deciding to persecute this "war". In fact if the U.S wanted to stop a good deal of terrorism, they should start with themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
